How about some white feathers to go with the white flags?

It's getting bad for the Dems. Real bad. The NYT isn't even spinning for them on Iraq today.

Dean has recanted "recasted" his statement. Apparently there is a context that makes "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong" mean "is an idea that could be right".

Crap, that link should be to here.

Dean's statement points to his opinion of the US military.
I think we can win any war we choose to fight. ANY.

"Apparently there is a context that makes "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong" mean "is an idea that could be right"...

Yeah, the listener needs to be as batshit crazy as Dean is. When are the pro's gonna regain control of the d'Emocrats? this amatuer hour shit is getting tiresome.

If the GOP--who I never donate to--could convince me my dough would be used to run this ad alone I would kick in pretty good. I refuse to contribute to the Incumbent Reelection Grabass Kitty for Hookers and Ketel One, but for this?

My reaction to this ad is....

YYYEEAAAAAAARRRGH!

Memo to Democrats yearning for our ignominious white flag of surrender:
"Stick it in and break it off."

tHE NEW DEMACRATIC SYMBOL A HEADLESS CHICCKEN

ROFL!

Somebody should be saving his comments.

When did the party that rode to power on fears, smears, and queers have the gloves on, anyway?

Its about time the GOP started questioning their patriotism.

I'm waiting for the Copperhead ad. The historical parallels are too good not to note. That would be a great follow up to the white flag ads.

They should put a white chicken on that flag... you know -- like France!

When did the party that rode to power on fears, smears and queers have the gloves on, anyway?

I don't know, Don. Probably alll during the time the party of slavery, secession, sodomy, acid, abortion and appeasement were vomiting out reflexive screeches of "BUSHITLER!BUSHITLER!BUSHITLER!"

But thanks for playing.

When did the party that rode to power on fears, smears, and queers have the gloves on, anyway?

Shut the fuck up before I start pimp-slapping you with my cock.

This, from a guy who supported the party that said the draft would return, that African-American churches would burn and that we'd be thrown into a global depression if Bush were re-elected.

Take your sanctimonious, lying bullshit and go play with the Kos Kids. I hear Armando is waiting for his Cleveland Steamer.

Somebody should be saving his comments.

I am, Lauraw. Someday I will share my Spurwing Plover scrapbook with the whole world.

Lee and Chris:

My o my---how you boys screech when your fallacy is pointed out!

I link to verifiable examples to back up my claims, you scream inane insults like stuck pigs.

That's the difference between the adults and the mewling children, I guess.

Lee and Chris:

My o my---how you boys screech when your fallacy is pointed out!

I link to verifiable examples to back up my claims, while you scream inane insults like stuck pigs.

That's the difference between the adults and the mewling children, I guess.

OOPS! Hit post twice...mea culpa.

BTW, Chris, I have never in my life claimed that Bush = Hitler, and the way you'll claim I have just points out how intellectually weak you are.

Sure thing there Don-O. Most sentient beings do not need a link to confirm that the Democratic Party was the party of secession (over slavery among other things) and that it is the party of abortion and the radical gay agenda.

Republicans weren't asking for a definition of marriage until you freaks took it upon yourselves to petition the courts to re-define it for you. Lot of pro-lifers in your party, huh?

Wow Don, your intellectual prowess is so overpowering. Monosyllabic smears mapped to links that barely relate to them don't make for bulletproof arguments.

Hence, we are justified in mocking you as a mentally stunted drive-by troll.

Oh, quit your whining Nancy-boy. Someone really needs to bounce a basketball off your head to toughen your ass up.

Did the Democrats say that if Bush was re-elected, the draft would return?

Why yes, they did!

Did the Democrats associate church burnings with Republicans?

Once again, the answer is a big fat AFFIRMATIVE.

Did Kerry and Co. warn of a global depression?

Hmmmm...

*bounce*

*bounce*

Chris:

Evern notice that in order to paint the Democrats as racist, you have to go back to the Civil War? And do you think that makes up for the Bush regimes racist policies in the 21st Century?

As for the "radical gay agenda"---it's equal rights for ALL Americans. I'm for it. You're not.

Lee:

When you say "the Democrats," what you really mean is "A Democrat" or "SOME Democrats."

Perhaps all that basketball bouncing has addled your brains so that you cannot tell the difference.

To paint the Democrats as racists we just have to go into the Senate and haul Senator Byrd (D-KKK) to his feet, Don.

The other gentlemen were just pointing out the long line of precedent to you.

Don, you gays want extra rights, not equal rights.

Evern notice that in order to paint the Democrats as racist, you have to go back to the Civil War?

Yes. Go to 1864. Add 100 years. Study Democratic filibustering of civil rights reforms

Dave & Mikey:

You're still just pointing to the past to direct attention away from the Bush regime's racist policies right here, right now, today.

Not only are you making excuses for racists, you're doing it poorly.

Mary Frances Berry?

Give me a fucking break.

Douchebag Donny, shouldn't you be trolling over at Karol's? Honestly, we already have plenty of trolls here. Your services are not required.

well, I was pointing out how absurdly wrong you were, but take it anyway you want it.

lots of subjective language in the stupid article you linked. "seems to", "appears to have" blah blah blah. stuff like that doesn't support your hyperbole.

I'm not sure someone who screws up by a century has much room to lecture anyone on history.

Evern notice that in order to paint the Democrats as racist, you have to go back to the Civil War?

Negative Ghostrider.

How about going to Steele's race for Senator in Maryland? And while the Oreo incident or the minstrel incident were both perpetuated by individuals, they were implicitly endorsed by the deafening silence coming from both Maryland democrats and the DNC.

Deafening.

Don, can we just send you the "I'm smarter than they are" T-shirt and get this over with?

Mary Francis Berry may not exactly be the best person to listen to on civil rights.

In the Internet's "Salon" magazine, Judith Coburn -- a former colleague of mine at the Village Voice and a first-rate reporter -- notes that Mary Frances Berry used contacts at the Justice Department to get a department official to call Berkeley Police Chief D.E. Butler and ask him why KPFA supporters who were peacefully demonstrating outside the station hadn't been arrested. And in a letter to the East Bay Express, Police Chief Butler himself wrote to complain: Many labor disputes have taken place in Berkeley over 25 years, but the Pacifica Foundation's decision to turn a labor dispute into a mass arrest situation was a first.

Yup, some warrior you've got there.

It yells "racist" because this is the mantra chanted by dupes who have been indoctrinated by the Gramscian/Adornoean vanguard currently running academia and the mainstream news outlets, the latter almost successful in their "long march" for "social justice."

dee:

How about going to Steele's race for Senator in Maryland? And while the Oreo incident or the minstrel incident were both perpetuated by individuals, they were implicitly endorsed by the deafening silence coming from both Maryland democrats and the DNC.

First of all, the "oreo incident" is a complete fabrication.

Secondly, no one implicity endorsed with silence. If you wanna go down that road, the rat problem in the NYC subways are "implicitly endorsed by the deafening silence coming from both New York Republicans and the RNC."

See---doesn't that sound stupid? Of course it does! So stop trying to use such an obvious fallacy, mmmmmkay?

It's not a perfect analogy, of course---since rats in the subway actually exist, while the oreos thrown at Steele do not.

Don, can we just send you the "I'm smarter than they are" T-shirt and get this over with?

Of course I'm smarter than you. Big deal---so is my cat.

Lee:

First of all, I wasn't refering to Ms. Berry. I was refering to the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

Secondly, what the fuck does a labor dispute at a Berkeley radio station have to do with anything?

I realize that you aspire to the character assassination and downright liying your namesake was so fond of, but you're not doing it very well.

Secondly, no one implicity endorsed with silence. If you wanna go down that road, the rat problem in the NYC subways are "implicitly endorsed by the deafening silence coming from both New York Republicans and the RNC."

Moron. Fucking stupid-ass moron.

Despite your best attempts at proving otherwise, rats and Republicans are not on equal terms. Implicit endorsement can be given through silence, if Democrats do something bad and other Democrats say nothing about it and allow it to continue.

In employment law, it's called implied consent.

Your subway analogy is facile and typical of the bullshit you try to spew on this site. If you wanted to make an actual analogy, you could have said - "If you wanna go down that road, the crazy guy who claims to be Richard Nixon in the subway is implicitly endorsed by the deafening silence coming from both New York Republicans and the RNC."

See how easy it is?

Don, you've got to try harder.

From the article you linked...

Peter Kirsanow, one of the four commissioners who voted against the report, said it was politically slanted, and based on shoddy research and faulty analysis.

“It started from the premise that the Bush administration was not sufficiently enforcing civil-rights law. When we examined it closely, we found it was deeply flawed in respect to its information, analysis and conclusions,” he said.

So I guess the entire commission didn't agree with this, and Berry was, typically, using government office and funds for partisan purposes.

Surely someone as scary-smart as you should have read the entire article, right?

Oh, there you go again Don. What do you think, I'm not going to read the link?

First, if this is your evidence for it not happening, we can START with the fact that this article is inconclusive. If I thought you were fair-minded enough to weigh evidence, I'd then point you to a host of articles, reports, and interviews that all describe the incident.

mmmmmmmmkay?

What is this? Spell it O.K. Don't condescend with the multiple m's. You look like an even bigger pussy.

Finally, if you are going to fisk the Steele incident, then respond to each point, not just the ones that you can conveniently find an inconclusive piece of slanted journalism for. Be a man, Donny boy.

Of course I'm smarter than you. Big deal---so is my cat.
So you don't want the t-shirt? Does this mean you'll still just leave?

I realize that you aspire to the character assassination and downright liying your namesake was so fond of, but you're not doing it very well.

The man was a minor deity, you're right.

Surely someone as scary-smart as you should have read the entire article, right?

It doesn't read anything that truly challenges its worldview, and it will not. It is an automaton, programmed to avoid truth by the sophistic dribblings of its masters.

It doesn't read anything

*heh*

A Primer on Argument and Logic

1. It is logically fallacious to argue on the basis of guilt-by-association, i.e., that an interlocutor is morally bankrupt due to the alleged moral failings of others with whom the interlocutor associates.

E.g., referring to someone as a member of "the party that rode to power on fears, smears, and queers."

2. It is logically fallacious to argue on the basis of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, that is, that an interlocutor is in error on one point because he is in error on an unrelated issue.

E.g., references to "the Bush regime's racist policies in the 21st century" in an argument regarding the Iraq war.

Please make a note of it.

I'm not going to look these words up for you, Liberal Trolls, but here's a list of words from pompous' post that you probably don't understand. Take this list with you to the big book over in the corner.

Primer
Argument
Logic
fallacious
interlocutor
morally bankrupt
alleged
moral
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
error
unrelated
references
war

Now, you may argue that you know a word here or there, just by sight. I say that you are wrong, not just because you usually are, but because it is clear that you misuse, misconstrue (oops...look that one up as well), and generally completely miss connotations, denotations, and subtle shades of meaning that most of the rest of us simply get.

Really, I'm trying to help you. Think of it is a holistic growth experience. Except without Ted Kennedy's plunger in your ass.

Lee:

Despite your best attempts at proving otherwise, rats and Republicans are not on equal terms....If you wanted to make an actual analogy, could have said - "If you wanna go down that road, the crazy guy who claims to be Richard Nixon in the subway is implicitly endorsed by the deafening silence coming from both New York Republicans and the RNC."

Fair enough. In place of "rats," feel free to substitute "crazy guy."

Of course, you're just trying to misdirect the conversation---and not nearly as smoothly as your odious namesake.

So I guess the entire commission didn't agree with this, and Berry was, typically, using government office and funds for partisan purposes.

You're still trying to turn this into a character assassination, instead of focusing on the very real and pressing concerns in the USCCR reports. Pointing to a GOP appointee's partisian sniping, and then accusing Ms. Berry of partisan chicanery in the same sentence is a breathtaking act of prevarication.

Don't condescend with the multiple m's. You look like an even bigger pussy.

Dude, I just like South Park. Don't have a hissyfit.

As for looking like a pussy---that would probably sting more if you were brave enough to sign your own name to your illinformed opinions. Hiding behind a fake name indicates that you're too cowardly to stand behind your words.

The man was a minor deity, you're right.

He was a liar and a cheap punk. that's why he was perfect for Republican politics.

Sue:

I realize that you're probably trying to sound haughty and/or intellectual, but it's not working. In fact, you're coming off as scary and creepy.

The use of the impersonal pronoun makes you sound like Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs---albeit with a better vocabulary.

Of course, if you're trying to sound scary and creepy, by all means carry on.

Don, you are an ignorant, ignorant jack ass.

The irony of you calling Lee Atwater a cheap punk and a liar .... that's rich. If you understood anything at all, you'd know LA changed all of politics - across the board - with his strategies and tactics. Clinton's '92 campaign was in part completely lifted from Atwater's playbook.

jack ass.

You should look up substantive as well.

Sue, you're sounding just about right. It simply doesn't understand, nor can it focus on what it needs to be focusing on.

It is probably also having a tough time typing with one hand when it types scary and creepy.

As they say ... hotttttttt

It needs to put the lotion on its skin, or it will get the hose again.

It needs to go back to its hole, before dick cheny screws a troll.